/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8577246]

hey guys i hope that we can compile a comprehensive crowd-sourced logically ordered semi-historically accurate list of books in mathematics for undergrad and grad students

any help will be appreciated

[Anonymous No.8578084]

Am working on a list ATM. Its gonna be huge.

[Anonymous No.8578357]

>fields
i don't know why but i laughed

[Anonymous No.8578446]

>>8578084
can you share what you have done ?

[Anonymous No.8578448]

>>8578357
i know it's a humongous goal to achieve, but you know it's worth a try

and is ">fields" mean a fields medalist or am i wrong ?

[Anonymous No.8578513]

>>8578448
Literally the most common use of the word field

[Anonymous No.8578523]

>>8578446
Essentially creeped on a shit ton of textbook threads. Currently cross referencing with online reviews and department opinions from different.

It won't be for a while, but I've designed it in hopes to be the premiere infograph that's passed around.

Way too many meme texts get by on these threads.

[Anonymous No.8578537]

>>8578523
nice i want to help you if you want
and this is what i have right now

[Anonymous No.8578539]

>>8578523
and

[Anonymous No.8578595]

>Califate of Al-Gebra

[Anonymous No.8578674]

>>8577246
Bumping for a great cause.

[Anonymous No.8578676]

>>8578674
That's a pretty niche meme, anon, I like it.

[Anonymous No.8578697]

>>8578676
I've got a few... Nothing else bashing palaeontology, though.

[Anonymous No.8579212]

I got pretty bored and i made my own.
Should I change or include something else?

[Anonymous No.8579271]

>>8577246
>groups are so far away from differential geometry
This land of mathematics must be a compact manifold, yes?

[Anonymous No.8579301]

>>8579212
Currently an undergrad and was wondering how useful Lang's "Basic Mathematics" is? Downloaded the pdf and checking through it now. What about Naive set theory? And should I go through "How to prove it" if I've done real analysis with Rudin (and did fine)?

Arigato, you fucking nerd.

[Anonymous No.8579302]

>>8579301
Nevermind, it seems to be super useless. Like, all the topics covered in that book you will meet sometime during high school or your first semester at uni.

[Anonymous No.8579349]

>>8579212
>implying hartshorne is good
>implying bourbaki is anything more than a meme
>homotopy type theory

[Anonymous No.8579358]

All subfields of mathematics are listed here

http://www.ams.org/msc/pdfs/classifications2010.pdf

A comprehensive modern list and review of introduction to logic (including set theory and such) is covered in

http://www.logicmatters.net/resources/pdfs/TeachYourselfLogic2017.pdf

I have a project where I try to map out the relationships between different topics in math, and graph it, here

https://graph.axiomsofchoice.org/?to=set_theory

but I update it rarely.

[Anonymous No.8579359]

>>8579302
It is useful for your time but I hope you don't claim to have really mastered the "basics" if so you should be able to solve IMO problems which are only constructed using elementary mathematics. In particular geometry is tremendously overlooked in general education these days

[Anonymous No.8579373]

>>8579359
>It is useful for your time but I hope you don't claim to have really mastered the "basics" if so you should be able to solve IMO problems which are only constructed using elementary mathematics.
you're fucking retarded
this is like saying you don't deserve a bachelor's in math unless you can do a Putnam

nobody (not even brilliant individuals) consistently solves high-level contest problems without a pretty significant amount of contest-specific practice

[Anonymous No.8579380]

>>8579359
So if mastering the basics consists of solving IMO problems, I should be solving IMO problems, not reading theory I have already read before.

[Anonymous No.8579386]

>>8579358
>tfw I think I've seen you post ever since I first started learning what a derivative was early in high school to now where I've completed a first semester course in topology

I'm coming for you, boi.

[Anonymous No.8579397]

>>8579358
>my equivalence of categories
does every mathematician have one of these

[Anonymous No.8579422]

>>8579212
This isn't really a "progression" because going from left to right down the chart is many times out of order and also would be repeating a ton of material.

as a collection it's not bad (especially by /sci/ standards where most reading list posts are this kind of retardation >>8578537), although I'd still change a few things
Tao is a meme text that nobody would read if Tao himself wasn't a meme, Hoffman/Kunze ought to be mentioned, Ahlfors is terrible, Hartshorne is going to put 99% of people that try to study it outside of a support network into an asylum, and geometry (or geometry/topology) needs its own heading; it's not really analysis.

The sheer volume of books on here and the scope of them (especially the graduate level scope) says to me this is almost certainly another instance of "spent way too much time window-shopping textbooks on Amazon", although if you're actually qualified to talk about all of these good for you.

[Anonymous No.8579492]

>>8579422
It's quite hard to make up a progression, seeing how all the topics interweave. To be honest, it's more of a 'topics I'd expect an advanced undergrad to know' or whatever